Is Photography Dead?

[AutumnJazz]

But if one doesn't have a driver's liscense because they live in the city or something, and police demand ID from them; what are they going to do, arrest him because he doesn't need to drive?

I'm pretty sure it's an actual law everywhere that you don't need to provide a driver's liscense if you're not operating a car and there is no reason to think you had been operating one. (As per http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/ )

 

[bjorke]

Try this one that I dated TODAY:

US: Refusing to Show ID to Police is *Not* an Offense; Federal Court Refuses Officer Immunity

 

[AutumnJazz]

Thank you bjorke.

If I were to ever found a country, one of the inalienable rights that the citizens would have would be the right to be anonymous. (And, of course, the right to document events, and I think photography would fall under that.)

 

[PeteZ8]

I for one am getting a bit sick of the "terrorist" line from these wannabe superheros.

On 09/11/2001, terrorists commanded four commercial airliners into three buildings and another crashed in PA killing thousands of people. People were afraid to fly, afraid to travel, afraid to go to the cities, afraid to go to malls, and afraid to go to stadiums.

The terrorists won a battle.

A few years later they mailed a few envelopes with Anthrax. The post office spent millions (billions?) of dollars on equipment to detect bioattacks. People were afraid to open letters from strangers.

The terrorists won a battle.

Then they tried to construct a liquid bomb on a plane. Now you can't bing a bottle of shampoo on a plane bigger than a shot glass.

The terrorists won a battle.

We now have the Patriot act, police are targeting innocent Americans (and in Europe too) for anything "suspcious", and heaven foribid you even raise your voice to an ignorant goon with a TSA badge. Our civil rights are slipping away right before our eyes.

The terrorists are winning battles.

When will people realize they don't want to destroy us, just our way of life, and they are succeding?

Personally I'll take my chances on saftey, that is the price we pay for freedom.

 

[bjorke]

It's not about us. Both the PATRIOT-Actors and religious fundamentalists both really only want one thing: YOUR OBEDIENCE.

They just disguise their actions as "public interest"

 

[PeteZ8]

It's not about us. Both the PATRIOT-Actors and religious fundamentalists both really only want one thing: YOUR OBEDIENCE.

They just disguise their actions as "public interest"

True. Very true.

 

[waileong]

1. You stood up for your rights, that's good enough.

2. The police did their duty, they investigated a 911 call, that's good.

3. They didn't detain you for 48 hours without charge, that's good too.

I don't see the problem with what took place.

But I see a problem with people's mindset these days. They're afraid, they're suspicous of strangers, they fear people with cameras.

To me, that means the terrorists have won half the battle. Because they have caused us to change our way of life, and to suspect everyone around us.

Is photography dead? Notice I did not say film photography, but photography.

Last night I was taking some night shots at the medical center in my city. They are constructing a new building and the metal is exposed with lights hanging from the ceiling. It was a foggy night and they emitted an ominous glow.

Minutes later, a woman pulled up, rolled down her window, took a clear look at me and drove off. I knew she was watching me. I continued to take pictures and she drove up again and began circling the parking lot while on her cellular phone. I knew that she was calling the police. I did not leave because I did not want her to write down my license plate number.

Around ten minutes later, the campus police arrived and asked what I was doing. I told him that I was an amateur photographer and was taking night shots of the building lights. He said that it was against the law. I then told him that I did not know that it was against the law to photograph in the city. He responded by saying I was on private property and it was against the law and asked for my drivers license.


His sergaent and another officer pulled up moments later. He then ran my drivers license. After talking back and forth they explained to me that since the terrorist attacks security is heightened and if someone looks suspicious they have to investigate it.

I then lost it and asked what was suspicious about my taking pictures in the clear open and well lighted area. What act of terrorism could I commit with a film camera (pentax k-1000)? I told him to look at my address and he would see that I lived only three minutes from the medical center. I also offered to give him the film, but he refused.

I asked for their badge numbers and names and they became angry and said that I was blowing the incident out of proportion. I responded by saying if you truly believed I were a terrorist you would have seized my equipment and would not have refused the film when I offered it to you. After a slightly heated discussion, they eventually gave me their info and drove off angrily.

I have read about similar incidents on APUG. What options have we left as photographers to be photographers? Have we any at all?

Jamusu.

 

[walter23]

I then lost it and asked what was suspicious about my taking pictures in the clear open and well lighted area. What act of terrorism could I commit with a film camera (pentax k-1000)? I told him to look at my address and he would see that I lived only three minutes from the medical center. I also offered to give him the film, but he refused.

I asked for their badge numbers and names and they became angry and said that I was blowing the incident out of proportion. I responded by saying if you truly believed I were a terrorist you would have seized my equipment and would not have refused the film when I offered it to you. After a slightly heated discussion, they eventually gave me their info and drove off angrily.

Right on, good for you. Any amount of inconvenience we may face as a consequence of standing up to the police is inconsequential compared to the later inconveniences that would result from not standing up to them. Remember, in a free society, the police serve the public, not the other way around.

 

[bjorke]

If I were to ever found a country, one of the inalienable rights that the citizens would have would be the right to be anonymous.

Then how would anyone know you founded it?

This is just a aside, but I'm fascinated by the self-contradictory nature of internet anonymity combined with rabid pursuit of identifying character. People will go to great lengths to cover their identity while spending days fleshing out their MySpace page and the web site for their WoW Guild.

I think anonymity is fine for many things, but I don't consider it a "right" and would demand that it be waived for anyone who demands actions from their government for things like filing lawsuits, becoming a civil servant, etc. When the sentiment (as in this case) is: "leave me alone," then the Fourth Amendment applies well. But in a broader sense anonymity does not serve well. Maybe your phone doesn't ring eight times a day with hidden callers who are inevitably salepeople fed by computers, but mine does. I get a similar amount of anonymous snail mail and spams by the hundreds. Who is being served here?

 

[Gary Holliday]

I continued to take pictures and she drove up again and began circling the parking lot while on her cellular phone.

Using the phone whilst driving is an offense in the UK as she is not in control of her vehicle. Next time get her number plate and tell the police of her wreckless driving...take a photo of her for evidence

 

[Tim Boehm]

Nah, photography isn't dead.

Here’s some interesting reading about photographer’s rights, especially the first link.

http://krages.com/phoright.htm

Dead Link Removed

http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

 

[butterfly]

I get this all the time in London and the suburbs. Seems if you put a tripod up you must be a professional and therefore out to make monetary gain from taking a photo of something, and if you point a light meter at anything you must be a terrorist on surveillance mission. In Stevenage the other week I was taking a photo of an Empty office block with a pinhole camera, when the lone lady security guard came out and warned me that I needed permission to photograph the building (I was on a public pavement). When I refused to move on, she threatened to call the police. I said, "be my guest". In London, whilst setting up my 4x5 to take a shot of City Hall, the whole time I was flanked by two security guards after I told them I was an amateur, and that I was on public ground. They did not hassle me other than the intense glares for the time it took me to set up and make the shot. As to street photography, I've virtually given up that, and my Leica hardly gets used!

Sadly, my take on all of this is that is will get even tougher - it is killing photography.

Steve

 

[mjs]

A bill has been proposed in the state of Maine making it a class D felony to "aggressively" view children in public places: http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01

The newspaper article is short and without significant detail but gives the impression that, if passed, the new law would allow police to arrest individuals who they believe to be staring at children in public places, such as beaches.

While I can't imagine such a law being ruled valid when presented to higher court review, it takes money and courage to fight such a legal battle. This is exactly the sort of law the original poster was concerned about, in my opinion. It's one thing to fight a spurious charge of photographing a public building; who among us is willing to risk having "child sex offender" appended to one's record, an appellation which in many jurisdictions stays for life even if charges are dropped, even if you are found innocent? This is the kind of thing with potential to kill photography, I think. It's scary to think that there are people out there -- putative adults -- who are pushing for exactly this result and who would applaud making photography illegal.

Mike

 

[AutumnJazz]

Paranoia, too much of it.

 

[mjs]

Paranoia, too much of it.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

Mike (ducks whenever he sees a black helicopter!)

 

[butterfly]

BBC ran an article this morning on TV. Now some councils are putting up 'no photography' signs in streets. Big black image of a camera with a line through it.. It really is getting riduculous now. I've mailed Austin Mitchell, MP, a photographer in his spare time who has tabled an 'early day motion' to have it debated.

May as well start saving for some studio lights, because soon cameras out of doors will be banned.. very sad indeed for photographers, in particular those of us that enjoy street/documentary stuff.

 

[bjorke]

Just go ahead ans shoot anyway

There's a sign in my old neighborhood that declared the town a "nuclear weapon free zone"

It works great

A bit like the old (identified over 2500 years ago) joke:

A guy is dancing and shaking a tambourine on his roof in the middle of a city.

"What are you doing?" ask the neighbors

"I'm driving off tigers" he says

"Idiot! Tigers live in the jungle 500 miles from here!" they tell him

"See?" he replies, "It's working GREAT!"

 

[DanielOB]

Is photography dead?

No. If one knows what is photography it will be easy to conclude:
photography is in better shape than ever in its hystory. Sugesting opposite is just lack of knowing what actually is photography, for so many false misinterpretings are around.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[bjorke]

Dead Link Removed

I think this means
No CHEAP cameras

 

[Removed Account]

That is about as clear a sign as the one I saw off the 407 in Ontario which had a black figure of a fast-food type paper soda cup and cheeseburger with the red line through them. If it didn't mention the no-littering bylaw beneath it I would have interpreted as, "No posession of fast food while on the highway offramp."

You should be OK with a view camera Bjorke, they bear no resemblance to the the object in the sign. Of course, it could easily mean, "No possession of oddly shaped bricks with large holes in the middle."

- Justin

 

[AutumnJazz]

I want to see a picture of a group of photographers, with all of their equipment out, in front of one of those signs. Extra points if you can get a copper to join them.

 

[bjorke]

No Toppling Smokestacks

No Nikon F Photomic

No Squeaking Balloon Noises​

 

[kombizz]

These days due to so call terrorism act, you SHOULD always inform police your activities around the buildings.